Prep for Disciplinary hearing

nicechap

tommytynan123 wrote: »

........

Being snapchat it is not social media and photos self-destruct after 10 seconds? Employers do not have a copy and their only proof is the witness statements and CCTV. Son does have a copy as his friend has some app that saves them. It has never appeared on social media. In the photo you cannot see the child at all or see the company logo - in fact it took me a while to figure out it was a trolley as it was taken so close.

.....

So your son has a copy of photo which disappeared after 10 seconds, as does his friend.


How many other friends have a copy?


How many other friends sent or shared a copy?


I'm not sure you understand how social media works.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

nicechap wrote: »

So your son has a copy of photo which disappeared after 10 seconds, as does his friend.


How many other friends have a copy?


How many other friends sent or shared a copy?


I'm not sure you understand how social media works.

None, it was sent directly to his friend, who didn't send it on to anyone. Not surprisingly, as it wasn't very funny; it was a throwaway line telling him he'd be late. His friend would have had to be very bored to forward it to anybody.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Deleted_User wrote: »

Sounds like there was a H&S as well as a security breach.

1. Corridor blocked by customer trolley.
2. Customer left untended and allowed to freely roam staff-only areas and not escorted by a member of staff.

Yes, there we are. Hopefully you feel your insistence on being wrong is now justified.

tommytynan123

Here we go then:
Original 'charge' was:
1. Conduct - bringing the company into disrepute
2. Breach of company data protection
3. Inappropriate behaviour.
Letter arrived today:
a. They claim the photo was photoshop'd. He doesn't own a PC and I've not got it on mine. Neither of us 2 would have a scooby about photoshop. His IT skills are basic away from work systems.
b. They claim the 'vital' screen shots, those mentioning collusion or putting pressure on'' were doctored and/or fabricated.
c. As a minor point the actual letter uses the wrong names for the 2 staff involved. Throughout the letter they refer to 'Nikki' when in fact it was 'Naomi' and they had both key staff in together 2 days back for re-interview.

Dismissed for gross misconduct. He is appealing iaw letter.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

What exact piece of gross misconduct has he been dismissed for? Taking a photograph of a baby? Or has the accusation of fabricating the screen shots actually added to the decision to dismiss him? It's fairly serious misconduct in itself. It could well have been a major mistake to bring that into the disciplinary hearing at all.

Why anyone would photoshop a fake photo of his finger by a trolley I don't know...he could surely just take a photo of his finger by a trolley.

Why you even mention (c) I don't know. You have a problem in sticking to the relevant facts and points and keep dragging in irrelevancies which cloud the issue, which I really hope hasn't cost him if he followed your advice.

nicechap

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

None, it was sent directly to his friend, who didn't send it on to anyone. Not surprisingly, as it wasn't very funny; it was a throwaway line telling him he'd be late. His friend would have had to be very bored to forward it to anybody.

How do you know it wasn't sent on or shared? He's sent / shared it with the originator.

Why did his friend take & convienently keep a copy of an unfunny & boring snapchat?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

nicechap wrote: »

How do you know it wasn't sent on or shared? He's sent / shared it with the originator.

Why did his friend take & convienently keep a copy of an unfunny & boring snapchat?

Because he has said it wasn't sent on and shared. He may be lying, but it would seem unlikely. Why on earth would he want to share it? With who? It's like sending a text to someone; they can copy it and send it on, but why would they? And even if it was shared, which it wasn't, it's extremely unlikely anyone in the company would know that.

His friend has an app that saves all his snapchat messages; it's not making a value judgement.

Anyway, the message isn't the point, which is where I was trying to get to. It's the actual act of taking the photo he is in trouble for.

Undervalued

tommytynan123 wrote: »

Here we go then:
Original 'charge' was:
1. Conduct - bringing the company into disrepute
2. Breach of company data protection
3. Inappropriate behaviour.
Letter arrived today:
a. They claim the photo was photoshop'd. He doesn't own a PC and I've not got it on mine. Neither of us 2 would have a scooby about photoshop. His IT skills are basic away from work systems.
b. They claim the 'vital' screen shots, those mentioning collusion or putting pressure on'' were doctored and/or fabricated.
c. As a minor point the actual letter uses the wrong names for the 2 staff involved. Throughout the letter they refer to 'Nikki' when in fact it was 'Naomi' and they had both key staff in together 2 days back for re-interview.

Dismissed for gross misconduct. He is appealing iaw letter.

Sorry but I don't understand the part I have highlighted.

Do you mean he is making an internal appeal to the company? Fair enough and he really needs to do this before going to an employment tribunal. However, as I said earlier, few such appeals are upheld.

Before considering a tribunal you / he need to get some proper legal advice. Based on what you have said here he will have an uphill battle. In my opinion, again based on what has been written here, the decision is harsh but probably legally fair.

To dismiss fairly in law an employer needs a "reasonable belief" that the misconduct took place (and it clearly did) and that dismissal is within the "range of responses a reasonable employer may consider". Again, it is as plenty of firms take a very strict line indeed on this type of thing.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Undervalued wrote: »

Sorry but I don't understand the part I have highlighted.

Do you mean he is making an internal appeal to the company? Fair enough and he really needs to do this before going to an employment tribunal. However, as I said earlier, few such appeals are upheld.

Before considering a tribunal you / he need to get some proper legal advice. Based on what you have said here he will have an uphill battle. In my opinion, again based on what has been written here, the decision is harsh but probably legally fair.

To dismiss fairly in law an employer needs a "reasonable belief" that the misconduct took place (and it clearly did) and that dismissal is within the "range of responses a reasonable employer may consider". Again, it is as plenty of firms take a very strict line indeed on this type of thing.

What type of thing? If you know what the gross misconduct for which he has been dismissed actually was, you have seen something I haven't. I am assuming that it was taking a photograph of a baby, but that still hasn't been confirmed. I suspect now that it may be fabricating stories about those that reported him for so doing.

Undervalued

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

What type of thing? If you know what the gross misconduct for which he has been dismissed actually was, you have seen something I haven't. I am assuming that it was taking a photograph of a baby, but that still hasn't been confirmed. I suspect now that it may be fabricating stories about those that reported him for so doing.

It seems clear to me. He took a photograph in his place of work featuring bars in such a way as to make it look like a prison. He then added a "funny" caption suggesting that it was a prison! He sent that to a non employee, thus bringing the firm into disrepute. Pretty much everything else is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how the employer found out, or even if they did find out, providing they have a reasonable belief that is what he did.

Whilst some employers would simply ignore it, or tell him to grow up, plenty of others would treat that sort of behaviour as gross misconduct.

As I said, harsh but legally fair.